Why were the words “Mystery of Faith” removed from the Consecration in the NOM and the meaning changed?

Because nowhere in any of the four accounts of the institution of the Eucharist in the New Testament were the words “mystery of faith” used by Jesus, either during the consecration, or after the consecration. The simple fact that Jesus Himself did not use the term ‘Mystery of Faith’ during the consecration was the basis for Pope Paul VI to transfer it to another part of the liturgy.

Because nowhere in any of the four accounts of the institution of the Eucharist in the New Testament were the words “mystery of faith” used by Jesus, either during the consecration, or after the consecration. The simple fact that Jesus Himself did not use the term ‘Mystery of Faith’ during the consecration was the basis for Pope Paul VI to transfer it to another part of the liturgy.

Are you basing that on Scripture? Also the meaning has changed when it was moved.

Are you basing that on Scripture? Also the meaning has changed when it was moved.

Is it not clear to you yet? Is there a verse in any of the four Gospels were Jesus used those same words during the consecration? The consecrations remain valid, though the words “mystery of faith” isn’t there, as the biblical accounts would show.

Is it not clear to you yet? Is there a verse in any of the four Gospels were Jesus used those same words during the consecration? The consecrations remain valid, though the words “mystery of faith” isn’t there, as the biblical accounts would show.

The Mass existed before Scripture was written. I’m not saying the consecration is not valid. I don’t believe in sola scriptura nor does the Church.

Again also, the meaning was change, but it seems nobody wants to address that.

The meaning is faulty in English. I believe the new translation to come corrects this.

In Latin the words are:

Mysterium Fidei.Mortem tuam…

In this it is more like an exclamation. The priest says “mysterium fidei” regarding what are happened on the altar. Perhaps a bit like if one said something like “Behold the mystery of faith” instead of the words alone. And the people acclaim it and respond.

Other languages like Italian and German translate the Latin literally. In French they have something like “Great is the mystery of faith” which I think still keeps the meaning.

But in English translation, the emphasis has been shifted by adding “Let us proclaim” and putting a “:” instead of “.” This makes it seem as if it is the people’s acclamation which is the mystery of faith, when actually, they are responding *to *the mystery of faith.

The meaning is faulty in English. I believe the new translation to come corrects this.

In Latin the words are:

Mysterium Fidei.Mortem tuam…

In this it is more like an exclamation. The priest says “mysterium fidei” regarding what are happened on the altar. Perhaps a bit like if one said something like “Behold the mystery of faith” instead of the words alone. And the people acclaim it and respond.

Other languages like Italian and German translate the Latin literally. In French they have something like “Great is the mystery of faith” which I think still keeps the meaning.

But in English translation, the emphasis has been shifted by adding “Let us proclaim” and putting a “:” instead of “.” This makes it seem as if it is the people’s acclamation which is the mystery of faith, when actually, they are responding *to *the mystery of faith.

Do I understand you correctly, are you saying the people’s acclamation is the mystery of faith? I understand when you say reponding.

The meaning is faulty in English. I believe the new translation to come corrects this.

In Latin the words are:

Mysterium Fidei.Mortem tuam…

In this it is more like an exclamation. The priest says “mysterium fidei” regarding what are happened on the altar. Perhaps a bit like if one said something like “Behold the mystery of faith” instead of the words alone. And the people acclaim it and respond.

Other languages like Italian and German translate the Latin literally. In French they have something like “Great is the mystery of faith” which I think still keeps the meaning.

But in English translation, the emphasis has been shifted by adding “Let us proclaim” and putting a “:” instead of “.” This makes it seem as if it is the people’s acclamation which is the mystery of faith, when actually, they are responding *to *the mystery of faith.

Why would we say a memorial acclamation when Christ is present on the Altar?

I believe the memorial acclamation was actually designed to address him in the second person, if the latin is translated literally.

I believe this is one of the reasons why “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” has been removed from the new translation. Not only is it not in the original Latin of the Missal but it does not follow the form of the others which are second person prayers addressed to Jesus on the altar.

I believe this is one of the reasons why “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” has been removed from the new translation. Not only is it not in the original Latin of the Missal but it does not follow the form of the others which are second person prayers addressed to Jesus on the altar.

Thank you so much for explaining that. I never understood why the “Christ has died” response wasn’t appropriate until now.

People say Christ probably didn’t say “mysterium fidei”, how do they know, where they at the Last Supper?

No. But the burden of proof is not on the one holding the negative proposition.

Christ may have had unicorns at the last supper!!! Scripture doesn’t explicitly say he didnt. But there is no evidence he DID, so it would be an odd thing to believe, and certainly the burden of proof is on any claiming that he did.

It is a logical fallacy, and a dangerous one, to treat absence of disproof as evidence in support of a proposition. “Scientists can’t prove there is no psychic powers for sure” does not mean there ARE. You can’t prove a negative. This is often called Appeal to Ignorance: nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Its absence from all four gospels, from the eastern liturgies, and from the earliest roman rite services (to the best of our knowledge) indicate that He in all likelihood did NOT say it. Or if He did, it is entirely a coincidence, as our “mysterium fidei” has no historical continuity with any hypothetical words of His. Its origin is simply known to be different, regardless of what pious popular belief might want to believe.

No. But the burden of proof is not on the one holding the negative proposition.

Christ may have had unicorns at the last supper!!! Scripture doesn’t explicitly say he didnt. But there is no evidence he DID, so it would be an odd thing to believe, and certainly the burden of proof is on any claiming that he did.

It is a logical fallacy, and a dangerous one, to treat absence of disproof as evidence in support of a proposition. “Scientists can’t prove there is no psychic powers for sure” does not mean there ARE. You can’t prove a negative. This is often called Appeal to Ignorance: nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Its absence from all four gospels, from the eastern liturgies, and from the earliest roman rite services (to the best of our knowledge) indicate that He in all likelihood did NOT say it. Or if He did, it is entirely a coincidence, as our “mysterium fidei” has no historical continuity with any hypothetical words of His. Its origin is simply known to be different, regardless of what pious popular belief might want to believe.

How can you compare the words of “Mystery of Faith” to unicorns is beyond me. To we have to sidetrack the debate or this course of discussion as to my mistaken reasoning which is dangerous and ignorant? I think St. Paul expresses the Mystery of Faith and yes it was not used in Eastern Rites. This also has nothing to do with my pious popular belief. I understand the words of “Mystery of Faith” was taught to us by Holy Tradition handed down to us by the Apostles but for some reason Vatican II is rejecting tradition and those also who purport this change.

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum University…stated…

The words “Mysterium fidei,” although not found in the New Testament institution narratives, formed part of the formula of consecration in the earlier rite. It is probable that they were inserted by Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) to combat the Manicheans who denied the goodness of material things.

After the Second Vatican Council, with the introduction of new Eucharistic Prayers, Pope Paul VI decided to remove the words from the formula of consecration and gave them their present function as an introduction to an acclamation of the faithful. This practice was traditional in some Eastern Churches but constituted a novelty in the Roman rite.

So for over 1500 years the words “Mystery of Faith” was included in the forumla and now it is being said the Church errored, this was a mistake, a defect, these are not the words of Christ, the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself because they are not specifically meantioned in scripture, is that what I am suppose to believe?. I didn’t know the old forumla to be word for word from Scripture. Council of Trent says we have to believe these are the Precious Words of Christ, but Vatican II says no this is no longer true and is moved under the Memorial Acclamation and the congregation’s response is to the Priest’s lead, Let us proclaim…is NOT the mystery of faith.

And yes these are the words of Christ, because it is Christ who is speaking these words no longer the Priest.

I understand the words of “Mystery of Faith” was taught to us by Holy Tradition handed down to us by the Apostles

I am very upset that these words were removed because they were lovely and ancient tradition. BUT they were certainly not part of a Tradition with a capital-t, and it is unlikely that apostles including them in their eucharistic consecrations, though they may have used the phrase “mystery of faith” in other senses, or even to refer to the eucharist.

**

formed part of the formula of consecration in the earlier rite. It is probable that they were inserted by Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461

)

Exactly. They were inserted 400 yeras AFTER Christ. Still, I wish they hadn’t removed them. But there is no evidence they were spoken at the Last Supper.

And yes these are the words of Christ, because it is Christ who is speaking these words no longer the Priest.

Oh. In that sense, yes they were Christ’s words for 1500 years in all the Masses preformed because he is the High Priest at all masses. But historically speaking, they were almost certainly not spoken at the Last Supper.
**